From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Guardado

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jul 11, 2018
No. 325 (Or. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2018)

Opinion

No. 325 A162800

07-11-2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN JOSE GUARDADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Yamhill County Circuit Court
16CR06956; John L. Collins, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427. He raises two assignments of error; we reject the first without written discussion but write to address his assignment of error challenging the trial court's imposition, under ORS 137.719, of a 15-year prison sentence. Defendant contends that, under State v. Carlton, 361 Or 29, 388 P3d 1093 (2017), his previous California convictions for violations of California Penal Code section 288 do not qualify as "comparable offenses" for the purpose of triggering the sentencing requirement of ORS 137.719. Defendant did not preserve that argument but asks that we review the imposition of the ORS 137.719 sentence as plain error. See ORAP 5.45(1) ("[T]he appellate court may, in its discretion, consider a plain error."). The state concedes that the error is plain, and for the same reasons explained in State v. Marcus, 292 Or App 770, ___ P3d ___ (2018), also decided today, we accept the state's concession that the imposed sentence is plain error.

ORS 137.719 provides that the presumptive sentence for a felony sex crime is life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole if the defendant has been convicted of felony sex crimes twice prior to the current sentence. A prior sentence can include sentences "imposed by any other state or federal court for comparable offenses." ORS 137.719(3)(b)(B) (emphasis added). In this case, the trial court departed from the presumptive sentence and imposed a 15-year prison sentence with no post-prison supervision. --------

Moreover, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. See Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (in determining whether to exercise our discretion to correct plain error, we consider, among other things, "the gravity of the error"). A 15-year sentence that is significantly longer than the 75-months imprisonment sentence that would otherwise be imposed under ORS 137.700 is a grave error. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 220 Or App 504, 508, 187 P3d 742 (2008) (the defendant receiving sentences one year and six months more than the maximum allowed was grave error).

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Guardado

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jul 11, 2018
No. 325 (Or. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2018)
Case details for

State v. Guardado

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN JOSE GUARDADO…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Jul 11, 2018

Citations

No. 325 (Or. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2018)